Bear Down Wildcats

The potential to improve defense is a matter of course. The potential is shown by the effort made on sequences of defensive possessions at chosen points in any game. Realizing that potential is simply extending that effort across a vastly greater amount of defensive possessions throughout the game.

Arizona spends most of a game looking like they can’t stop penetration and can’t cover shooters behind the arc and in the corners.

Yet you know at the start of a possession where everyone is locked in with intensity and that offense isn’t going to get off a low percentage shot before it expires. Although lately that often ends with a banked 3.

Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

PHXCATS wrote:Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

I am shocked you might think that

It is interesting that you think defense is important, at least in basketball. From teadiing you on the FB boards for the last several years, it seemed you could not have cared less about it.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

84Cat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

It would be nice is Heeke implemented a no tweeting policy after games, especially losses

He's not wrong.

He's not, but we have a few guys on this and other recent teams who always seem to have bunny ears for all the haters out there on social media. Gets worse when you get to the NBA, gentlemen.

ChooChooCat wrote:One thing about the bench that irks me is that Miller has this propensity, especially after the first media timeout, to insert 3 bench players into the game all at once, which has never brought upon positive results, yet this is done every game. I can see 2 guys in at once, but 3? Every game this occurs and it baffles me to no end. It either ends up killing any offensive spark the starters provided early in the game or it digs us a bigger hole. Once again this is done EVERY GAME.

I agree with this 100 percent. And some of his lineups just dont make any sense in terms of balance, having enough shooters on the floor, etc.

PHXCATS wrote:Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

1) longhorn said it the post above mine about the lack of intensity and being locked in
2) I don't think he is coaching differently which maybe an issue
3) I think the team has tuned him out a bit at least at times
4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard) and with the FBI that his message may not be as crisp and clear as in the past
5) I think he gets in his own head at times (Xavier)

A lot going on personally? What rumors?

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

1) longhorn said it the post above mine about the lack of intensity and being locked in
2) I don't think he is coaching differently which maybe an issue
3) I think the team has tuned him out a bit at least at times
4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard) and with the FBI that his message may not be as crisp and clear as in the past
5) I think he gets in his own head at times (Xavier)

The base question is pretty much always:

When a coach previously reaches teams, and you can assume he probably didn't forget how he did it, is it on the players or the coach?

Saying Miller's messaging has changed is essentially speculative, as is the personal issues thing. The majority of our players have been here at least a year prior and heard Miller's message for going on two, three or four years.

It returns to whether any lack of connection falls on the players or coach. Personally, even if we sat in on all communications, I doubt you can answer the question. No one really can say a different message would connect.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Sounds like a coaching issue (if the team can't lock in and play together for the majority of the game)

Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

1) longhorn said it the post above mine about the lack of intensity and being locked in
2) I don't think he is coaching differently which maybe an issue
3) I think the team has tuned him out a bit at least at times
4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard) and with the FBI that his message may not be as crisp and clear as in the past
5) I think he gets in his own head at times (Xavier)

The base question is pretty much always:

When a coach previously reaches teams, and you can assume he probably didn't forget how he did it, is it on the players or the coach?

Saying Miller's messaging has changed is essentially speculative, as is the personal issues thing. The majority of our players have been here at least a year prior and heard Miller's message for going on two, three or four years.

It returns to whether any lack of connection falls on the players or coach. Personally, even if we sat in on all communications, I doubt you can answer the question. No one really can say a different message would connect.

It is on the coaches to reach their team. Phil Jackson is one of the best of all time for doing so the best anyone ever has. Players come and go. It is on the coaches to bring in the guys they can work with and to work with them as best as possible.

As for rumors, they are just that, who knows what is true and what isnt and it isnt any of our business. I think there is something wrong with this team and it is all between the ears for the players and coaches. The talent on the bench and on the court is far superior to every team that the Arizona Wildcats have gone up against this year except Purdue and U of A probably has more talent and coaching ability than Purdue. So there is something wrong and I dont know what it is exactly but look at all the best coaches in all sports, they adjust game to game, possession to possession and season to season to match the roster.

Phil "lost" multiple Lakers teams

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

1) longhorn said it the post above mine about the lack of intensity and being locked in
2) I don't think he is coaching differently which maybe an issue
3) I think the team has tuned him out a bit at least at times
4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard) and with the FBI that his message may not be as crisp and clear as in the past
5) I think he gets in his own head at times (Xavier)

The base question is pretty much always:

When a coach previously reaches teams, and you can assume he probably didn't forget how he did it, is it on the players or the coach?

Saying Miller's messaging has changed is essentially speculative, as is the personal issues thing. The majority of our players have been here at least a year prior and heard Miller's message for going on two, three or four years.

It returns to whether any lack of connection falls on the players or coach. Personally, even if we sat in on all communications, I doubt you can answer the question. No one really can say a different message would connect.

It is on the coaches to reach their team. Phil Jackson is one of the best of all time for doing so the best anyone ever has. Players come and go. It is on the coaches to bring in the guys they can work with and to work with them as best as possible.

As for rumors, they are just that, who knows what is true and what isnt and it isnt any of our business. I think there is something wrong with this team and it is all between the ears for the players and coaches. The talent on the bench and on the court is far superior to every team that the Arizona Wildcats have gone up against this year except Purdue and U of A probably has more talent and coaching ability than Purdue. So there is something wrong and I dont know what it is exactly but look at all the best coaches in all sports, they adjust game to game, possession to possession and season to season to match the roster.

I just disagree. Maybe I'm weird, but when I played basketball, I would not have blamed a coach for not reaching me. And I blamed coaches for stuff. I blamed them for not giving me enough minutes. I blamed them for making me play out of position.

I would never have thought that my motivation, effort and focus were on the coach. As a player, no one should have to tell you to bring effort, motivation and focus, let alone use psychological tactics to pull them out of you.

I get the perspective that coaches should seek to communicate with their players, but the one sided view...players aren't dogs to be trained. Players know what is needed.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Do you think Miller is coaching differently than other years where this was not an issue?

1) longhorn said it the post above mine about the lack of intensity and being locked in
2) I don't think he is coaching differently which maybe an issue
3) I think the team has tuned him out a bit at least at times
4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard) and with the FBI that his message may not be as crisp and clear as in the past
5) I think he gets in his own head at times (Xavier)

The base question is pretty much always:

When a coach previously reaches teams, and you can assume he probably didn't forget how he did it, is it on the players or the coach?

Saying Miller's messaging has changed is essentially speculative, as is the personal issues thing. The majority of our players have been here at least a year prior and heard Miller's message for going on two, three or four years.

It returns to whether any lack of connection falls on the players or coach. Personally, even if we sat in on all communications, I doubt you can answer the question. No one really can say a different message would connect.

It is on the coaches to reach their team. Phil Jackson is one of the best of all time for doing so the best anyone ever has. Players come and go. It is on the coaches to bring in the guys they can work with and to work with them as best as possible.

As for rumors, they are just that, who knows what is true and what isnt and it isnt any of our business. I think there is something wrong with this team and it is all between the ears for the players and coaches. The talent on the bench and on the court is far superior to every team that the Arizona Wildcats have gone up against this year except Purdue and U of A probably has more talent and coaching ability than Purdue. So there is something wrong and I dont know what it is exactly but look at all the best coaches in all sports, they adjust game to game, possession to possession and season to season to match the roster.

I just disagree. Maybe I'm weird, but when I played basketball, I would not have blamed a coach for not reaching me. And I blamed coaches for stuff. I blamed them for not giving me enough minutes. I blamed them for making me play out of position.

I would never have thought that my motivation, effort and focus were on the coach. As a player, no one should have to tell you to bring effort, motivation and focus, let alone use psychological tactics to pull them out of you.

I get the perspective that coaches should seek to communicate with their players, but the one sided view...players aren't dogs to be trained. Players know what is needed.

I am blaming the players as well for their lack of heart and intensity and smart play for 40 minutes every game. I realize that 40 minutes every game maynot be possible because of how humans are programmed mentally and physically. But I feel that they can do more than they currently are and if they do give as much as they can physically and mentally, they would have to get unlucky to not make a final four run.

PHXCATS wrote: 4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard)

PHXCATS wrote: As for rumors, they are just that, who knows what is true and what isnt and it isnt any of our business.

Classic.

Never change machina.

PieceOfMeat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote: 4) I think he has a lot going on personally (rumors heard)

PHXCATS wrote: As for rumors, they are just that, who knows what is true and what isnt and it isnt any of our business.

Classic.

Never change machina.

Its not my business. I was just saying that I think Miller has more on his mind than just basketball and that could be hurting his ability to coach to his fullest possibility. I am sure may others have heard rumors if I have, but it isnt my business so I will not discuss further/

I haven't heard a thing about these so called rumors. Does anyone want to spill it, or is this a "get premium" thing?

• Record: 19-5 (9-2)

• AP Poll: #13

• Kenpom: #23 (+18.69)

• • Adjusted Offense: #6 (120.4)
  • Adjusted Defense: #106 (101.7)
  • Adjusted Tempo: #174 (68.3)

• Sargarin: #18

• BPI: #20

• RPI: #19

• • Strength of schedule: #52
  • vs Top 25: 1-1
  • vs 26-50: 2-1
  • vs 51-100: 6-3

• KPI: #19

• TeamRankings Predictive: #17

• Massey Ranking Composite: #18

• Bracket Matrix Bracket Avg: 3.90 (4 Seed)

This is shaping up to be like last year again, stuck in the high teens and low twenties - of course last year Arizona was top 4-6 in the AP Poll. But weirdly enough despite the defense being so bad compared to last year, this year's team is better than last year's, mainly because the efficient offense is top tier which outweighs last year's team being somewhat good on offense & defense (both in the mid to late 20s).

If you can only be a only top tier team on one side of the ball, it's far better to be on offense. The defense is looking bad right now bring ranked #106 and allowing >1.00 points per possession, have to lower it to allow around .95 the rest of year to get this thing down to within striking distance for the Kenpom 20/20 metric.

NYCat wrote: - of course last year Arizona was top 4-6 in the AP Poll.

Because there were three Pac teams consistently ranked in the top 10 all year. League RPI must've been quite high.

Beachcat97 wrote:

NYCat wrote: - of course last year Arizona was top 4-6 in the AP Poll.

Because there were three Pac teams consistently ranked in the top 10 all year. League RPI must've been quite high.

No wins vs this weeks ranked teams and no remaining teams on the schedule.

Seeding will suffer

Beachcat97 wrote:

NYCat wrote: - of course last year Arizona was top 4-6 in the AP Poll.

Because there were three Pac teams consistently ranked in the top 10 all year. League RPI must've been quite high.

It wasn't, last year it was the 6th worst



This year last time I've checked the Pac 12 was worse than the AAC, so 7th best conference. We're essentially playing in a pseudo mid major conference these last couple of years.

I'm at a loss to explain the decline of the Pac. We did have Oregon in the FF last year, and the Ducks have clearly arrived as a national program, this season's mediocre record notwithstanding.

But generally speaking, it's been AZ + a rotating group of second best teams for a while now. UCLA, Stanford, UW, Cal, Utah, Colorado...occasional good seasons but no consistent excellence from year to year.

The Pac continues to draw elite high school talent every year, but it hasn't really translated to success in the NCAA tourney. Only one FF berth for the Pac in the past 9 years. That's ridiculous.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'm at a loss to explain the decline of the Pac. We did have Oregon in the FF last year, and the Ducks have clearly arrived as a national program, this season's mediocre record notwithstanding.

But generally speaking, it's been AZ + a rotating group of second best teams for a while now. UCLA, Stanford, UW, Cal, Utah, Colorado...occasional good seasons but no consistent excellence from year to year.

The Pac continues to draw elite high school talent every year, but it hasn't really translated to success in the NCAA tourney. Only one FF berth for the Pac in the past 9 years. That's ridiculous.

UCLA needs to be good. That is the program with the most upside that isn't us. The farting around under Alford means the team that should be pushing Sweet 16's isn't in the tourney.

We don't need consistent excellence. We need 4 or 5 other tourney level teams. Oregon is at that level. UW, Stanford and Cal are all major rebuilding projects. Colorado regressed to the mean and Utah is decent but not the automatic tourney team. USC is probably the closest to giving the Pac 4 consistent tourney teams.

We either lack teams at the top (15-16) or have top teams with no depth (16-17).

I like to look at Vegas because they are the best expert out there. I did a little research this morning and found this.

Now I will say that over a season a team's results vs the spread is not an indicator of how good a team is but somewhat a measure of the team's performance vs expectations and talent.

Of the current AP top 25, U of A is the worst vs the spread at 7-15-1. U of A is also worst in the PAC-12.

This is not saying U of A is not good. I think U of A is a very good team. But this does point to there being some issues with this team.

Team W vs Spread L vs Spread Total games vs Spread Win %
Arizona State 11 9 20 55.0%
Arizona 7 15 22 31.8%
California 8 14 22 36.4%
Colorado 11 11 22 50.0%
Oregon 10 12 22 45.5%
Oregon State 8 14 22 36.4%
Stanford 13 11 24 54.2%
UCLA 11 12 23 47.8%
USC 15 9 24 62.5%
Utah 10 8 18 55.6%
Washington 11 9 20 55.0%
Washington State 9 12 21 42.9%

Team W vs Spread L vs Spread Total games vs Spread Win %
Villanova 15 7 22 68.2%
Virginia 15 4 19 78.9%
Purdue 14 10 24 58.3%
Michigan State 13 11 24 54.2%
Xavier 16 8 24 66.7%
Cincinnati 11 8 19 57.9%
Texas Tech 10 9 19 52.6%
Auburn 16 5 21 76.2%
Duke 13 8 21 61.9%
Kansas 12 10 22 54.5%
St. Mary's 10 11 21 47.6%
Gonzaga 9 13 22 40.9%
Arizona 7 15 22 31.8%
Ohio State 12 11 23 52.2%
Tennessee 13 7 20 65.0%
Clemson 12 8 20 60.0%
Oklahoma 8 14 22 36.4%
Rhode Island 11 8 19 57.9%
West Virgina 10 10 20 50.0%
Michigan 14 9 23 60.9%
North Carolina 12 10 22 54.5%
Wichita State 9 11 20 45.0%
Nevada 12 9 21 57.1%
Kentucky 9 13 22 40.9%
Miami 8 9 17 47.1%

Damn you just mixed up U of A and ASU

dcZONAfan wrote:Damn you just mixed up U of A and ASU

Good catch. Everyone does it all the time. Corrected

Point spreads are not designed to be a straight representation of how much better one team is from another.

PHXCATS wrote:

dcZONAfan wrote:Damn you just mixed up U of A and ASU

Good catch. Everyone does it all the time. Corrected

No, everyone doesn't do it all the time. most often the people doing it aren't UofA fans.

Oh, wait, I get it now.

DrWildcat wrote:Point spreads are not designed to be a straight representation of how much better one team is from another.

Some people never understand that.

PHXCATS wrote:

dcZONAfan wrote:Damn you just mixed up U of A and ASU

Good catch. Everyone does it all the time. Corrected

Not everybody posts personal rumors about an Arizona coach on an Arizona online forum, though, only to immediately follow that up with, "It's none of our business."

The concept of responsible publication seems to elude you.

DrWildcat wrote:Point spreads are not designed to be a straight representation of how much better one team is from another.

Point spreads are a victory margin that some guy pays you $5,000 to make sure your team fails to cover.

-Stevin Smith

DrWildcat wrote:Point spreads are not designed to be a straight representation of how much better one team is from another.

Agree 100 percent

catgrad97 wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

dcZONAfan wrote:Damn you just mixed up U of A and ASU

Good catch. Everyone does it all the time. Corrected

Not everybody posts personal rumors about an Arizona coach on an Arizona online forum, though, only to immediately follow that up with, "It's none of our business."

The concept of responsible publication seems to elude you.

Ok...... I gave reasons for my concerns. I didn't say or spread anything.

DrWildcat wrote:Point spreads are not designed to be a straight representation of how much better one team is from another.

Very true, point spreads are to get bettors to bet 50% on each side. It's not until the sharps come in late who really know what the point spread should be.

I take the opposite view from you (what a surprise!) AZ fails to match the spread because too many bettors go with past excellence and not current performance.

DiehardDave37 wrote:I take the opposite view from you (what a surprise!) AZ fails to match the spread because too many bettors go with past excellence and not current performance.

Weird that doesnt happen to Villanova, Michigan State, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina

Not a lot of lines for U of A changed in U of A's favor by a notable amount from the opening line due to public bets.

I am not overreacting to the UW game.

Amazing crowd. Gritty comeback. Blocked shot in to a shooter.

And we showed we knew how to beat a zone...the right way. We missed shots from the high post and even in that we make in our sleep. Give that UW crowd and team some credit. Shit...even our best teams went 17-1

I saw more positive in that loss than in some of our wins.

Think in periods...how much we improved from December to January. Then from January to February.

If we have that same jump from February to March? There are two clearly better teams in this game, and one that should be. And that leaves whothefuckknows in March. I don't think we will make that run, but if someone thinks someone else is better primed, I really would ask that person to think about that for a second. If you have watched #betterteam. Everyone is flawed, but we are getting better from day 1 (we had to).

I do like the idea of Akot in the game with Trier at the point and Alkins/Ristic/Ayton for longer than 2 minute periods. The length...

And Ayton has started to learn how to help...and how to let someone quicker get a step than eliminate the shot.

Someday, he will palm that block, land, and say "no, no no".

PHXCATS wrote:

DiehardDave37 wrote:I take the opposite view from you (what a surprise!) AZ fails to match the spread because too many bettors go with past excellence and not current performance.

Weird that doesnt happen to Villanova, Michigan State, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina

Not a lot of lines for U of A changed in U of A's favor by a notable amount from the opening line due to public bets.

No lines change due to "public bets".

Ever.

There's some reality to regionality, even with lines and LVSC. They know us. They get our line pretty on the money much of the time.

EVCat wrote: I do like the idea of Akot in the game with Trier at the point and Alkins/Ristic/Ayton for longer than 2 minute periods. The length...

I love seeing Akot getting minutes - his length and athleticism seem to immediately freak out the opposing offenses. I'd like to see a whole lot more of him for three reasons: 1) we really need an extra big guy if Lee and Pinder are going to continue to be so foul prone, 2) he can be a small ball forward if we face teams that give Ristic + Ayton trouble on D, 3) I want him happy with his Arizona experience heading into the offseason as we absolutely need every guy back that we can keep.

Akot has had tendinitis issues since high school. Really surprised he didn't redshirt this year just to heal up. From everything I have read, resting his knees while strengthening up muscles is the best cure.

Merkin wrote:Akot has had tendinitis issues since high school. Really surprised he didn't redshirt this year just to heal up. From everything I have read, resting his knees while strengthening up muscles is the best cure.

I know Miller mentioned that as restricting him early... have we heard an update on that issue? Looking at the uptick in usage I assume his knees health has improved.

I would have been surprised if he red shirted after he reclassified, I think miller planned to be "all in" this season.

Not seeing any chatter about this week’s games. Two hungry, desperate teams coming into McKale. From their perspective, AZ is their last chance for a true resume building win. If we don’t come out aggressive, either of these teams could steal one. Both have good guards. USC has better bigs.

Beachcat97 wrote:Not seeing any chatter about this week’s games. Two hungry, desperate teams coming into McKale. From their perspective, AZ is their last chance for a true resume building win. If we don’t come out aggressive, either of these teams could steal one. Both have good guards. USC has better bigs.

Number one and number three offenses in the Pac-12.

UCLA thankfully plays worse defense than we do somehow, so that ought to be a shootout. They play big starting 6'11" GG and 7'0" Welsh, though both of our bigs are better than those two. Welsh has started taking a bunch of threes for some reason and I'm glad to let him take them. The big problem is their starting SF, Kris Wilkes. Five star freshman standing 6'7" with a 6'11" wingspan, he has really come into his own during conference play hitting 41% of his threes for a 125 ORtg. How we defend him will be crucial. Starting PG Aaron Holiday (6'1", 6'6" wingspan) has also been lights out in conference play.

USC is more well rounded but they're working Bennie Boatwright back into the line-up after missing a week with foot pain (plantar wart) - so there's some vulnerability there. We'll see how he does against ASU in his first full game back. We'll be the third game of the hardest three game stretch of their conference schedule, having played @UCLA in a loss already and @ASU on Thursday. Will we see a repeat of last year's late conference skid where they needed to step up in their toughest run of the schedule to stay in the conf title race... only to lose four in a row and tumble down the rankings?

Jordan McLaughlin has seen his scoring dip but has been passing really well in conference play. Jonah Matthews is shooting lights out from range - we have to hope Trier can contain the 6'3" sophomore two guard's three point shooting. They play 6'5" Elijah Stewart at SF and he's been their most consistent scoring threat throughout the season... hopefully we have Rawle back to contain him, though his size is a match for Randolph, Smith, and Akot as well. USC also plays big across the front court with Boatwright (6'10"), Metu (6'11") and Rakocevic (6'11")... though they've been using 6'7" swingman Jordan Usher who can space the floor. They also play Shaq Aaron and Derryck Thornton for reasons unknown.

Excellent breakdown, YDF. Gotta go 2-0 this week. No excuses. We lucked out getting these teams at home this season. Defend home court.

Beachcat97 wrote:Excellent breakdown, YDF. Gotta go 2-0 this week. No excuses. We lucked out getting these teams at home this season. Defend home court.

Thanks Beach.

Defend McKale and we're both that much closer to defending our conference title and we put two more good wins under our belt for seeding. Our team sheet is thin in quality wins and these next three games (including the most important, @ASU) are our last remaining games in conf to secure quality wins.

Hopefully we get both USC and ASU in the conference tournament as well... those would add two more wins to our Q1. 5-3 against quality opponents would be a lot better than our current 2-3. Losing at Washington and at Colorado were not helpful in that regard.

These are two of the four biggest games remaining until Vegas. Gotta go at least 3-1 in those for good seeding.

UCLA
USC
@asu
@Oregon

PHXCATS wrote:These are two of the four biggest games remaining until Vegas. Gotta go at least 3-1 in those for good seeding.

UCLA
USC
@asu
@Oregon

Absolutely. And what's strange is that it probably doesn't matter all that much which of these we win/lose as long as we end up 3-1. None of these teams is ranked. ASU is probably the highest in terms of RPI, BPI, and other vital metrics.

If we can't go 3-1 in February vs. the best of a weak Pac, we're probably not as good as I thought. I mean, it should really be 4-0, but I'm cutting them some slack.

U of A -9 vs UCLA tomorrow

o/u 158

PHXCATS wrote:U of A -9 vs UCLA tomorrow

o/u 158

That strike anyone else as high? We were favored by 7 vs. UW.

Beachcat97 wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:U of A -9 vs UCLA tomorrow

o/u 158

That strike anyone else as high? We were favored by 7 vs. UW.

A little high. Kenpom is calling it a seven point win. Massey calling it seven or eight.